The Anscombe Affair, Part V: After Sherif, The Deluge
Sherif Girgis (P '08) is the former President of the Anscombe Society, a Rhodes Scholar, and a notorious Mensch to boot. He has provided us with a statement on behalf of the Anscombe Society regarding the events of the past few days. Here we were hoping for a streetfight, and Girgis gives us this eloquent, civil stuff.
Girgis absolves the University completely of all charges that they acted improperly in the handling of the affair. With respect to Nava's shenanigans, he breaks out the ultimate Anscombe diss, calling them, "distinctly unchaste." He also details the scrupulous and responsible manner in which the officers of the Anscombe Society investigated the possibility that this could be a hoax.
Some representative excerpts:
Some outside the University criticized the administration for what they perceived to be an anemic response or politically motivated indifference, but this is grossly unfair. From the time of the e-mailed death threats onward, Princeton's administrators and Public Safety officers have acted with impeccable competence and prudence.
From its inception, the Anscombe Society has prided itself on valuing reason over rhetoric, dialectic over polemic, and civility over belligerence. Needless to say, the twisted utilitarian calculus by which supposedly noble ends would justify deception, self-mutilation (Francisco confirmed that he acted alone at every step) and other manifestly evil means could not be more at odds with the principles that underlie our moral convictions or the unswerving commitment to truth that guides our approach.
I should end with a word about Francisco, whom I saw, perhaps for the last time, last night. I cannot, of course, speak for the entire campus community that he dragged through an unholy triduum of sorrow, then fear, and then confused anger. Nor is this the place to wonder idly about motives, or what punishment Francisco will incur. For my part and on behalf of the Society, I wish only to express our hope that he will find healing and forgiveness.
If there's a lesson to be learned from the whole ordeal, let it be that the word "triduum" -- which I had to look up -- means, "a period of three days of prayer usually preceding a Roman Catholic feast." And folks, that's no hoax.
After the jump -- Sherif Girgis's statement in full:
It was with deep disappointment that I learned on Monday that Francisco Nava had staged death threats against himself, three other Anscombe Society students (including me) and a faculty advisor-and, most egregiously, a physical assault on himself. I regret that the university community has been put through this trial and am pleased at least to see it resolved so quickly. Now that the dust has settled, I wish on behalf of Anscombe to clarify some questions and to give credit where credit is due.
First, those of us who received the emailed "threats" are deeply grateful for wide support from friends, acquaintances and even strangers in the wake of Francisco's injuries. Letters of support and requests for joint solidarity events that came from across moral and ideological divides-including from Princeton Pro-Choice Vox and the Pride Alliance-bore radiant witness to what makes Princeton great at what seemed to be this story's darkest hour.
But the reason why I declined to hold these public displays of support for Francisco should now be clear. It is also the reason why I discouraged the University Student Government from sending out a campus-wide email about his putative attack, and why we who received the emailed threat called off a tentatively scheduled solidarity meeting with Francisco. As early as the night of Francisco's "assault," Anscombe Society President Kevin Joyce learned that Francisco had fabricated an instance of hate-speech against himself while at the Groton School. From that moment, Professor George, Kevin, Jonathan Hwang and I-the others who were "threatened"-worked closely with Public Safety to examine this dubious episode from Francisco's past and to uncover other irregularities in his story. Our sole goal was to arrive quickly at the truth.
But our grounds for doubting him were not conclusive. So it was as much to protect Nava's privacy and reputation in the case of his innocence as to contain the deception and betrayal in the case of his guilt that we refused to speak or act on the basis of any hard conclusions. Some outside the University criticized the administration for what they perceived to be an anemic response or politically motivated indifference, but this is grossly unfair. From the time of the e-mailed death threats onward, Princeton's administrators and Public Safety officers have acted with impeccable competence and prudence.
In view of these unwarranted criticisms and the attempts of some to capitalize politically on the basis of hasty judgments about this case, we decided to publicize our doubts and enjoin caution until the investigation was completed: Professor George and I cooperated with requests from Ryan Anderson-who was writing an article about the incident-to give him access to all the relevant information. At 3:00 AM on Monday morning, a precise account of what we knew and what we didn't was posted on the First Things magazine website, to which we subsequently directed all inquirers.
Hours later, Francisco made his confession.
From its inception, the Anscombe Society has prided itself on valuing reason over rhetoric, dialectic over polemic, and civility over belligerence. Needless to say, the twisted utilitarian calculus by which supposedly noble ends would justify deception, self-mutilation (Francisco confirmed that he acted alone at every step) and other manifestly evil means could not be more at odds with the principles that underlie our moral convictions or the unswerving commitment to truth that guides our approach. There is, if you will, something distinctly unchaste in tolerating the self-corrosive effects of a lie for this, or any, cause. Though deeply saddened by the events of the past week, then, the group of which I am proud to call myself a former president and current member will continue to seek the truth about human flourishing and engage opposing conceptions of it with integrity, even cheer.
I should end with a word about Francisco, whom I saw, perhaps for the last time, last night. I cannot, of course, speak for the entire campus community that he dragged through an unholy triduum of sorrow, then fear, and then confused anger. Nor is this the place to wonder idly about motives, or what punishment Francisco will incur. For my part and on behalf of the Society, I wish only to express our hope that he will find healing and forgiveness.
17 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: anscombe affair
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
December 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Well said.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
This was caused by Nava’s “twisted utilitarian calculus”?
I don’t see Peter Singer out faking hate crimes.
Maybe if Nava got laid, he’d be a little more relaxed about stuff…
December 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Finally, a pseudo-intellectual conservative who can spout meaningless jargon like a pro!
December 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
He isn’t a pseudo-intellectual. Still, what he wrote could have been shorter. Here is a shorter, yet much less eloquent version written by me, an engineer. :)
“I am disappointed in Nava. So are other members of the Anscombe society. Those of us who received threats are grateful to our fellow Princetonians for sending us letters of moral support.
We did not openly support Francisco Nava at first because we doubted his claims. As early as the day of the “assault,” Kevin Joyce had heard about Nava’s acts at the Groton school. Since then, Professor George and members of the Anscombe Society worked with public safety to examine the episode from Nava’s past. We did not immediately come out and blame Nava, because we weren’t yet sure that he had fabricated the assault on himself. The Princeton administration handled this situation very well.
Since some people tried to capitalize politically on what they knew about the case, we decided to reveal what we knew about Nava’s past to Ryan Anderson, who was writing an article about the incident for First Things website.
What Nava did does not reflect upon the values of the Anscombe society, which prides itself on following reason and civilized discourse. Even if Nava fabricated the incident to publicize Anscombe’s noble goals, what he did was wrong. Nava dragged us through fear, and then anger; still, I hope he finds healing and forgiveness.”
December 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Thanks Princeton ‘09 for the Cliff’s Notes.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Let’s take bets. Will Brit Hume et al publish anything more than a factual retraction, or, as I believe it is now, an “update”?
What, no takers?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I am the TA for Math 4367: Twisted Utilitarian Calculus. The hardest part is learning to take twisted, utilitarian integrals.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
The only way this whole debacle could become more full of lulz is if Girgis were the one who beat up Nava and had his Rhodes taken away.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Why was Nava carrying a carbonated beverage at the time of his attack (on himself)? Can he be excommunicated (or whatever they do) from LDS?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
so in an ideal world, what would nava get as punishment?
so if nava is lucky enough to avoid jail time, he’ll probably get community service from the borrough.
how about sentencing him to a year handing out condoms at mccosh or volunteering at trenton’s planned parenthood clinic? now THAT would be justice!
any other brilliant ideas?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am
“Why was Nava carrying a carbonated beverage at the time of his attack (on himself)? Can he be excommunicated (or whatever they do) from LDS?”
Actually, the prohibition is TECHNICALLY against “hot” beverages (the book of Mormon has a passage against hot water and Mormon’s take that to be a prohibition against caffeine…). And I don’t think they will get rid of Nava because he was CARRYING a caffeinated beverage.
I feel for Nava. He is psychologically troubled…as much as I disagree with his views, I think it would be humane for him to get counseling and get maybe some community service for keeping the Princeton Borough police and Public Safety from arresting immigrants who urinate in public (in their crackdown on public urination, they severely fined a campus worker from, I think, Guatemala, who cried in court…refer to the DP).
December 19th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Wait, Orangina doesn’t have caffeine in it, does it?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:57 am
ok… so the LDS church apparently views drinking some beverage as a great offense worthy of excommunication… but not beating yourself senseless and lying to friends, family, law enforcement?
good priorities.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I’m sure that the Mormon church would not condone the way Nava behaved.
I mean, I think they’re loony too, but you shouldn’t misrepresent them.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I know that most things have nothing to do with scott layne, but this obviously does.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’m pretty sure the Mormons wouldn’t be down with the lying and stuff, and I’m pretty sure that self-mutilation is a big no-no. I think the poster above was trying to find some irony in the choice of object with which to self mutilate. This kid needs help, but if it turns out that severe self-repression has lead him to twice stage elaborate attacks on himself, then it is fair game to ask questions about the strict regimes of both certain religions and certain political organizations. What good are strict unbending moral codes when it is all bluster and without forgiveness (for self or other)? As William Blake wrote in the “Proverbs of Hell”, “Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.”
December 20th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
“From its inception, the Anscombe Society has prided itself on valuing reason over rhetoric, dialectic over polemic, and civility over belligerence. Needless to say, the twisted utilitarian calculus by which supposedly noble ends would justify deception, self-mutilation…and other manifestly evil means could not be more at odds with the principles that underlie our moral convictions or the unswerving commitment to truth that guides our approach.” Rarely have I seen phrases more full of rhetoric over reason, polemic over dialectic, and belligerence over civility.